Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) Cultural definition of "spiritual damage".

Nice post, and wellcome to the forum, Burn <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />!

Übereil

In the Antiquity, Philosophy meant Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry and all sciences. They all formed the general subject of philosophy. The first mathematicians (Thales, Pythagoras) considered themselves philosophers- this is clearly mentioned in Diogene Laertios' letters and the dialogues of Cicero, inspired by the Greek lore. It is said that Pythagoras once met king Leon of the city of Philunte and he was asked what is his purpose in life. He responded: "To love wisdom (Philosophia means love of wisdom)" And he also mentions the way of the Philosopher- pure observation. All his mathematical theories serve as a basis of his ultimate purpose- to prove that number stands as the law of all things (and, once again, the study of principles means ontology and metaphysics- which are philosophical domains). As for Anaxagoras and Heraclit, they clearly state (once again) in their books, "About Nature", that the purpose of philosophy is "the study of the environment, of the things that flow". So, biology and physics are part of philosophy as well. That leaves philosophy the first and most important science of them all... The other ones emancipated themselves in the Aristotelic and post-Aristotelic period. So, the history of Mathematics, Physics, etc. is confounded with the one of Philosophy, and not viceversa.

no. sorry but that's not entirely true. there was a real if intuitive conscience about the distinctions of the science realms. I will say they all formed the general subject of what the philosophy studies, what is quite if subtlely different, even so it's always true.



a posteriori (common meaning not kantian meaning) interpretation again. historically to be a mathematician and to be a natural scientist was very different in Ancient Greece. After all it is what makes the difference between Plato and Aristotle, as more than certainly you know it, Burn.

sorry but history of mathematics has begun in Aegypt and Sumer some centuries before anyone spoke Greek!!! you're well documented but allow me to not sharing the interpretation you gives to the documents.

No offenses intented.

PS: you're right i meant Anaxagoras and not Anaxamandros... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />

That's what I meant when I wtore about Philosophy as "the first science". At least I thought so. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

But what is science anyway ? Isn't tracking also a kind of science ? I guess you'll need years at a special school to learn it ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> Like any craft, by the way. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
Hm, if it is a craft, then it is no science ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

In the United States somebody sued because of the school their Daughter went to, they were forced to say the Pledge of Allegence

"One nation, under GOD"

They sued in a court... I think that is spiritual damage.

Alrik, the same thing is happening in the United States, people not Christian, going to athiesim, and science...

And its funny to think taht in the middle ages ALMOST everyone in Europe, and then in the north america( whites ) were Christians. Just intresting, but now they don't conect with the culture. Its odd.

as for the Pledge of Allegiance, it's written that way or has those americans who opposed to the word 'God' has forgotten about the impact that word has on those who fought for freedom of the country? it bore great meaning to them & therefore it should be said out loud in appreciation though not in conviction of God's existence.

Al, thanks for the spark of intelligence which is this thread that fires up so many intelligent minds who posted here. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

people, keep it coming.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/offtopic.gif" alt="" /> i find science tend to contradict itself; one of u mentioned that science does not pretend that it doesn't have explanation for many many things (therefore implying that concepts such as spirits, God, soul cannot be merely discounted just because they're unexplained), yet it relies on empirical evidences to prove existence.

just because we have not scanned, probed, tested & experimented on what u claim as your brain, it doesn't mean it does not exist, isn't it? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

about finding God in science, i do somehow experienced it in my school lab. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> life & what we have/are/experiencing today is too highly evolved or organised to be some random regurgitations made by some ancient amoeba long long ago.

Jangut said:
[color:"orange"] i find science tend to contradict itself; one of u mentioned that science does not pretend that it doesn't have explanation for many many things (therefore implying that concepts such as spirits, God, soul cannot be merely discounted just because they're unexplained), yet it relies on empirical evidences to prove existence.

just because we have not scanned, probed, tested & experimented on what u claim as your brain, it doesn't mean it does not exist, isn't it? [/color]

I said:
Scientist always (have to) concede, that there are phenomena that science cannot explain - yet.

So - yes, that means that it does exist.

The apple falls to the earth - before Newton we did not know why, but we knew that it does. After Newton we understood why, and having opened that door, we also came to know that (and why) Earth turns around the sun.

Hence the "yet".

this

may be more or less related to the question

Here is an interesting thought via my study of Christian belief.

Jesus came and died for mankind’s sins.
He in essence became the unblemished lamb.
Some Christian faiths believe that he did away with the Ten Commandment Law at the cross, but did he really.
Think for a moment.
If he did away with the Ten Commandment Law why do Christians pray for forgiveness of their sins?
If there is now Law then there is no sin, because you no longer have anything accusing you of wrong doing.
So what law was really done away with?
It was the law contained in ordinances.
Paul attests to that in Hebrews.
The ordinances are those that required the sacrifice of turtle doves, lambs, and so on etc..., found in Leviticus.
The Ten Commandment Law was never done away with.

Oh well, more Spiritual food for thought.

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Tsel, it may have been that the laws have been done away with but not in the sense that the said chritian faith had thought. it is been done away when u're no longer governed by lust that leads to sin & so to curb oneself of such indulgences, one has to submit to laws.

i'm not the right person to speak in this particular subject as i have not enough experience nor knowledge. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" /> however let me use an example, & i hope not to mislead anyone. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

instead of fear of wrongdoing due to the consequences, one changes mindset to love goodness to the point of practice therefore such person has no more need of law to govern as he has no more of the lust or desire to sin & commit wrongdoing which is prohibited by law. so how does one apply law to those who don't ever desire to commit wrongdoing? just like creating laws for vegetarians so they are prohibited to eat meat. pointless.

Jesus is out to create a new mindset for the people. which is why he used the analogy of replacing old cloth with a new one instead of endless patching of the former. law is used to prevent wrongdoing but it doesn't promote goodness. hence christianity; a new faith to promote goodness in a more radical sense.

What highly disturbs me is what the Christian Crusaders did to Jerusalem in order to "free" it.

Which taught me that Fanatics of any kind can be highly dangerous.

Very wise words Alrik.

It's why I try to stay far from being involved in any religion.

Fanatic... is bad in every way.

Just don't let thoughts of anti-fanaticism stop you from your own pursuit of wisdom and what is right.
Reading any particular book does not make one religious and it certainly does not make one part of any religion.
It only makes you a seeker of wisdom and knowledge.

More often than not people tend to confuse these thoughts and toss aside potential wisdom saying it is religion.

The definition of Religion by the Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: re•li•gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Nowhere in these definitions does it say reading any particular book makes one religious.

Just more Spiritual food for thought.
Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

True, Tsel. And that allso ruins the idea that science is a religion, since it's acually the opposit. Even though you can believe in it as you believe in relligion.

And Alrik, I think pepole with extreme oppinionsin general is quite dangerous (espessially the rightwing/leftwing/middlewing (hate this political view with socialism on the left, and conservatism on the right, since it more or less leaves liberalism out of the picture)).

Übereil

@Tsel


It's what I live by.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The problem is that to much people can't think for themselves anymore. Although none will admit it.

and you still pretend that you haven't read what i said about science üb? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ROFL.gif" alt="" />

well some useless long thread making short with brightness by a younger one <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

edit: err because too long and repetitive posts may be useful actually i will continue the thread i was referring to though!

which, Al, has nothing to do with religion at all. religion is only to officially legitimise the invasion. the actual motive i believe is either greed/hate. of course it didn't help any that the gullible or equally greedy/hateful church authorities at that time were just as eager.

please don't make a mistake of linking believers with the belief in ways that both are inseparable. i for 1, as a christian, condemns the so-called Crusade. the crudade was a christian version of 'jihad'. does that make all christians potential fanatics & therefore to be curbed? do the stupid few muslims that abused their religion to justify their cruel acts somehow make we believe that Islam is bad right to the core? does the aggresively passive bhuddists make Bhuddism a fuddy duddy religion? how about science with all the realisations that earlier theories & findings were flawed so much it was downright embarassing? does that make science a doubtful method/technique of learning?

as how an uncle of mine puts it, the bible is a double-edged sword. i think u know what i mean.

janggut >

Don’t worry my friend.
I really don’t think that’s how AlrikFassbauer meant what he said although it does seem that way.
I think what he was doing was using the phrase ‘Christian Crusaders’ as a foundation to give a better mental picture to a phrase ‘Highly Dangerous Fanatics’.

I can almost say without a doubt he did not mean that towards Christians or Christianity in general. He meant those who are ‘Religious Fanatics’; like modern day 'David Koresh’ or ‘Jim Jones’.

You’re a smart guy. I’m sure you know what I mean, right?

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm sure that you both know what both of I think.... Right? Now thats spiritual damage, to the mind. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Lews >

Is that like Me, Myself, and I?
Not I, but the other I. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
Yes, now that surely is Spiritual Damage! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />